Meet the Press NOW — December 22

Hi there, and welcome to meet the press now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, as President Trump is set to make an announcement later this hour from Palm Beach, Florida, alongside his defense secretary Pete Hegseth, as well as the Secretary of the Navy. The announcement comes as the Trump administration is ratcheting up its pressure campaign against the Maduro regime in Venezuela. seizing oil tankers amid a barrage of lethal strikes against a lugged drugboats. The U.S. Coast Guard says it is an active pursuit of another sanctioned oil tanker yesterday off the coast of Venezuela, that according to two U.S. officials, the vessel known as Bella 1 was placed on the U.S. sanctions list back in June of 2024. It comes a day after DHS Secretary Kristi Noem released this video, showing the U.S. Coast Guard apprehending a different oil tanker on Saturday, also off the coast of Venezuela. It was the second tanker the U.S. successfully intercepted this month. Adding to the tensions, the Pentagon has conducted at least 28 strikes on boats. The administration says are used to traffic drugs, killing 103 people. It all comes as questions loom over the administration's actual endgame. In an exclusive phone interview with President Trump last week before these latest escalations, NBC's Kristen Welker asked the president if he ruled out the possibility that this could lead to war. The president initially said, I don't discuss it. But when pressed further, he said, quote, I don't rule it out. No. And on the question of whether he wants to see Venezuela's leader, Nicholas Maduro, out of power, if that was the ultimate goal, the president said, quote, he knows what I want. Lawmakers within the president's party, however, appear divided on whether the U.S. should be pursuing regime change. Take a listen. I support the idea of standing up to Maduro, and I want him to go. I am all in the camp for regime change. He is not the recognized leader of Venezuela. We've supported the opposition leaders, the past two opposition leaders in Venezuela. And would you support it with arms? Biden did that. With American arms boots. Arms is a different issue. That's a very different issue on that case. If you break it, you buy it. Joining me now is NBC News Senior White House correspondent Garrett Hake and NBC News Senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley. So, Julia, what is the latest when it comes to this third vessel? What is the Department of Homeland Security saying about these operations? So this vessel is known as Bella One, and they're saying that it was flying a false flag, which means it might have been carrying the flag of another country to disguise the fact that this is a sanctioned vessel. Now, in some cases, we've heard about sanctioned oil. This vessel itself was sanctioned. And it was sanctioned in 2024 under the Biden administration. because of a connection they saw between this particular vessel and someone who was a financial backer of the Houthi rebel group. And so Secretary Kristi Noem and her post over the weekend talking about this operation said that they were going after oil that had been sanctioned to keep them from funding narco-terrorist. Of course, this is a tangent to the original mission that we saw there to go after boats carrying narcotics, which the administration said was done to take.

strikes on those boats in order to save American lives, presumably if those drugs had led to American overdoses. Now they're going after oil, which of course is Venezuela's top export. So if they continue to do this, ramp up pressure, that really could be devastating to Venezuela's economy. So, Garrett, what are we hearing from White House officials when it comes to these escalations off the coast of Venezuela? Ryan, candidly, almost nothing. And it is an interesting development here that you've got a little bit of mission creep from the White House after what started as these strikes against drugboats now involving seizures of far, far larger vessels. And the president has kind of taken this out of his big sort of set piece. Remarks recently, it wasn't a big part of his speech to the nation, Bailey a passing mention last week. It wasn't a part of his rally on Friday night, and his administration has done relatively little to bring the American people along as we've moved from the strikes on small boats to the seizures of large vessels. So I'll be watching his remarks today very closely to see if he makes the case for why this is in America's interests. And, Julia, let's expand a little bit about what you were talking about before, about the authority that the U.S. government has when it comes to seizing these vessels. One, it's a sanctioned tanker, but is it carrying sanctioned oil? I mean, is there a distinction between the two? Well, so for the second... interdiction that we saw, the one that came on Saturday where they were able to successfully interdict, that was sanctioned oil. And in that case, a federal judge had signed off saying that there could be, at least as far as he was concerned, authority for the Coast Guard to go in and make these interdictions. We're seeing these rather striking videos of people from the Coast Guard dropping onto these vessels. That is... part of the Coast Guard's job, at least as far as American law is concerned. But of course, maritime law and international laws could come up with a different different... ending conclusion on whether or not it is legal to do so. And then the question would also become, what about the vessel, especially because these vessels don't necessarily just operate for one country. They can be going between many different countries. And of course, most of the oil coming from Venezuela is bound for China, in this case, although there have been times where some of this oil has gone to Iran. And so a lot of complicating factors here. But at the end of the day, we're really waiting, and I think Garrett's hitting on this as well, to have the White House explained to the American. people, what's going on here? And why is it necessary? Because it's a different argument when you're talking about oil versus drugs. And could it mean that these are going to escalate, that we're going to see it more often? And does the Coast Guard have the capacity to do this on a regular basis? Well, I mean, the Coast Guard's chief mission is to save American lives at sea and interdict drugs that might be coming into the United States. And in some cases, interdict immigrants on boats who might be coming in. And they do enforce U.S. law at sea. That is part of their mission.

I think there's a question about their resources being stretched here and whether or not, especially as these regions or the spheres which are operating continue to get further and further from the United States, exactly. As Garrett said, are they getting into some kind of mission creep here? And Garrett, what is the end game here, right? It seems as though the administration has a different explanation. Sometimes it's drugs, sometimes it's oil, sometimes it's regime change. Have they really offered any clarity there? They haven't, Ryan. And all signs point towards it being regime changed due to the way that the administration has linked all of these things. They argue that Nicolas Maduro is both ahead of one of the drug cartels here and also using the oil revenue that Venezuela has to support these narco-terrorist efforts. They put a bounty on Maduro. None of that suggests a scenario in which Maduro could continue leading that country. When the president has been asked that questions, he gives these kind of vague non-answers like, Maduro knows what I want or he knows what I want to see from him. So the administration has tried to create a posture of almost a strategic ambiguity around what their real goals are here. But none of these actions provide for a stable Venezuelan economy or suggest that there's some negotiated way out of this for the Venezuelan regime. And Garrett, we do know the president is expected to speak later this hour. What should we expect from that? Well, look, most of the public reporting on this, not confirmed by NBC News, is this is about new vessels joining the U.S. Navy. The president has spoken at some length at different times about... His desire to grow the U.S. Navy, to grow the Icebreaker fleet that the Coast Guard uses, for example. He sees shipbuilding as a sign of renewed American strength. He talks about the idea that he rebuilt the military in his first term, now a little bit more of a focus on the Navy. Again, this dovetails with what we've been talking about today. And he'll certainly be asked questions about how the ships that we have in the fleet, many of which are deployed in the Caribbean right now, are being used while we're talking about building more. All right, Garrett Hake, Julia Ainsley. Thank you guys both for being here. We're going to turn now to the Justice Department's ongoing release of the Epstein files, with Congressman Rokane saying that he expects another batch of documents to be released today. It comes amid growing frustration over the department's handling of the documents. A group of Epstein survivors releasing a statement today demanding Congress take action after the DOJ failed to release all of the documents on Friday, as was required by law. Those demands being echoed by lawmakers on Capitol Hill, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer vowing to introduce a resolution directing the Senate to take legal action against the DOJ. In the House, Congressman Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, who spearheaded the effort to compel the DOJ to release those files, are threatening to invoke a rarely used congressional power called inherent contempt to punish Attorney General Pam Bondi. They're flouting the spirit and the letter of the law. It's very troubling the posture that they've taken. And I won't be satisfied until the survivors are satisfied. They're 1,200 victims. They're rich and powerful people who either engaged in this abuse, covered it up or were on this island. And what the American people want to know is who are these people? And instead of holding them accountable, Pam Bondi is breaking the law.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged on Friday morning hours before the initial batch of documents were made public under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that the Trump administration needed more time and was planning to release the documents over the next couple of weeks. Todd Blanche defending that decision on Meet the Press. The statute also requires us to protect victims. And so the reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that. to protect victims. We're going through a very methodical process with hundreds of lawyers looking at every single document and making sure that victims' names and any of the information from victims is protected and redacted, which is exactly what the Transparency Act expects. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Bill Clinton is now demanding the DOJ release any material related to the former president, claiming that a failure to do so would confirm that the Justice Department's actions are, quote, not about transparency, but about insinuation. Joining me now is Misty Maris, a defense attorney, an NBC News legal analyst, and NBC News senior national politics reporter, Sahel Kapoor. He's with me here on set. So Sahel, let's talk about what's going on here in both chambers of Congress. First, what would Chuck Schumer's resolution really accomplish in the Senate? Well, fundamentally, Chuck Schumer is trying to keep the heat on the DOJ. He's promising to force the vote, or at least try to force the vote in the Senate, to begin legal action against the DOJ for what he calls a blatant disregard. for the law, the law being the Epstein-Files Transparency Act. He's echoing claims made by the authors of the law, Rokhanna, and Thomas Massie, about the... partial release of the files when the law requires complete release and the heavy redactions when the law is very specific about the limited grounds for withholdings that the DOJ is allowed to do. There was, of course, the 119-page grand jury document, which was just black ink entirely redacted. There was a backlash over that, a photo involving President Trump that was posted, then taken down, then reposted, when the law again says there's no basis for withholding to try to protect a public figure from reputational harm or embarrassment. So this is Chuck Schumer's way of saying. people, he's not happy, that Democrats are not happy, the authors of the law are not happy, the Epstein survivors are not happy, and there's a lot more for the DOJ. But then we've got Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, they're on the other side. They're threatening to hold Attorney General Pambandi in inherent contempt. How would they go about doing that? And wouldn't they need some buy-in from a wider range of Republicans? Yeah, they would need a vote of the House of Representatives. So let's talk about inherent contempt for one second. This power dates back to the mid-1800s. It's almost never been used. It's been dormant for about a century. And it says Congress can be a self-enforcer, you know, of its own authorities. Essentially what they would have to do here if they go after Attorney General Pam Bondi is have the sergeant at arms show up at the DOJ and try to arrest her, put her in handcuffs when she has a security.

In general, establishing that good faith exercise and saying that this is all being done above board and that it's simply a matter of needing more time. And the reasons that more time is needed is actually to protect victims. In general, you're likely to see a judge within reason give those extensions of time. But I think here, when we're looking at this from the public perspective, you know, outside of the courtroom, there's reason to have skepticism. It's really the way. way that this has played out over time. But yes, if you were before a judge and it was, you know, the first extension needed, you would generally get that additional time so long as you could show you were doing what you needed to do to comply with the law. Right. The question would be whether or not it was in good faith, which I think is one of the open questions here. So as far as opening any new criminal investigations, which is a big part of one of the excuses the DOJ is using on why they're slow rolling some of this release, based on what you've already seen that's been released, what type of investigations could still fall outside the statute of limitations? So the types of things that I'm looking for as we see more and more documents come to light, more and more information come to light, is identifying potential co-conspirators. And the types of cases that could be investigated and prosecuted that would not be barred by the statute of limitations is anyone who is a co-conspirator involved in the sex trafficking of minors. There is essentially no statute of limitations to bring those types of charges. Keep in mind, Ghislaine Maxwell, you know, She was convicted of conduct that occurred between 1994 and 1997, prosecuted in 2020. This was one of the appellate issues. She tried to get her conviction overturned on statute of limitations ground. Court of Appeals said no. So that is something that certainly is open to the extent that there's evidence of those who were involved in any aspect of Jeffrey Epstein's ring that could be subject to prosecution. And, Missy, I want to play for you something from Todd Blanche's interview with Kristen yesterday about Ghislaine Maxwell being moved to a prison camp. I feel like it hasn't gotten enough attention. Take a listen to this. Why was she moved just days after you interviewed her, Mr. Todd Blanche? So that's a Bureau of Prison Security issue that I will not talk about. Did you have anything to do with it? Did you have anything to do with it? Let me finish. First of all, I am responsible for the Bureau of Prisons. So every decision that they make lands on my desk to the extent it needs to. But just let me talk about the security issue. At the time that I met Ms. Maxwell, there was a tremendous amount of scrutiny and publicity towards her. And the institution she was in, she was suffering numerous and numerous threats against her life. So the BOP is not only responsible. for putting people in jail and making sure they stay in jail, but also for their safety. So initially he said he wasn't going to talk about it, but then he essentially admitted that he at least played some role in her being moved. There's also questions about her moving from one type of a prison facility to something that seems a bit less in terms of difficulty. Is this normal protocol for the Justice Department? How serious would the threats have to be for her to move?

So this is incredibly unusual. And here's why. And it's really about the type of establishment she was in and that she's moved to FPC Bryant, which is a prison camp. It is minimum security. And it's not unusual for prisoners to move necessarily. The Bureau of Prisons would do an analysis if there was a safety concern, sure. But someone like Ghislaine Maxwell, who is a designated sex offender, would not be eligible to go to a camp under. any other circumstance. Maybe a lower degree, a low security prison, but not a camp like this one. So that is a highly, highly unusual move. And it's one of the reasons why people are thinking that there's more to that than meets the eye. Especially the timeline, right? It happened right after the interview, and now he admits that he at least played some role in the movement. Obviously, a lot more to talk about as relates to that. Misty Maris, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it. Coming up, the U.S. strikes back, launching retaliatory strikes on dozens of ISIS targets in Syria following a deadly attack on American troops in the region. We're covering the fallout and where the conflict goes from here. Plus, a top Russian general is killed by a car bomb in Moscow. and what appears to be the latest targeted assassination by Ukraine of a high-ranking Russian commander. We have the response from the Kremlin and Kiev. You're watching Meet the Press now. Here's what happened when one journalist reported on DEI programs. I decided to just focus on the University of Michigan. I obtained internal documents that showed that the school had spent about a quarter of a billion dollars on DEI programs. I spent two weeks in Ann Arbor talking to everybody I could find. The unintended consequences of these programs, they had sort of left everybody dissatisfied. And this expensive machinery the school had built just imploded. If you're a journalist, you are not on anyone's team. All you're trying to do is figure out as many of the facts as you can gather. The facts are going to guide you to where the story lands. You're not taking sides. I'm Nick Confessori. I'm an investigations reporter for the New York Times. Journalists like Nick follow the facts wherever they lead. They go where news breaks, get answers firsthand, and publish what they find. That's fact-based reporting. Seek it out if you don't already.

Welcome back. It was a whirlwind weekend for President Trump's foreign policy agenda. We already mentioned that escalation between the U.S. and Venezuela, but we're also tracking developments both in the Middle East, as well as the administration's ongoing but slow-moving talks to end the war in Ukraine. Starting in Syria, with U.S. military launching strikes against ISIS infrastructure and weapons sites on Friday, and retaliation for an attack earlier this month that killed two U.S. soldiers and a contractor in a... and a contractor. In a post on social media, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, quote, this is not the beginning of a war. It is a declaration of vengeance. Meanwhile, in Moscow, a Russian general was killed after a bomb exploded under his car. Russian investigators say they are looking into whether Ukraine's intelligence service was involved in the attack. Ukrainian officials have yet to comment. This comes after U.S. special envoy, Steve Witkoff, spent the weekend in Miami, meeting separately with Russian and Ukrainian officials. Joining me now is NBC News intelligence reporter Dan DeLuce. Dan, let's first start with these U.S. strikes on ISIS targets in Syria. What more do we know about what the U.S. struck? And what is, is this it for the U.S. retaliation or could we see more? They're saying they hit more than 70 targets. So this was a substantial operation. They were using fighter jets. attack helicopters, even artillery. And they say what they're trying to do is hit these weapon sites and hit these fighters to make it more difficult for them. to stage attacks or even terrorist operations. And, of course, ISIS is not what it was, but that attack on those troops the other day was a reminder that it's not gone, right? And that it still has this ability to inspire attacks abroad as well. And they're saying this is not over. They're saying this could go on for weeks. It could even go on for up to a month. And that's interesting because, of course, President Trump has very much come into office saying we're not going to get involved in much as much as we did overseas. Well, you also have some reporting on the possibility of military strikes by either the U.S. or Israel on Iran, speaking of foreign entanglements, what can you tell us about that? Yeah, so Israeli officials told myself and my colleagues that they're very concerned about Iran's ballistic missile program, that they're rebuilding that program really quickly after the Israelis bombed it over the past year, right? And the nuclear sites are heavily damaged, and they're making some initial steps to try to reconstitute the nuclear program as well. But Israel has a meeting coming up. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting President Trump later this month. And this is going to come up, we think, we were told. And it's not clear how President Trump will respond to this. He may not be so enthusiastic about Israel going into Iran again. So there could be some friction there. And Trump's focus, of course, is the ceasefire agreement in Graza, which he sees as a great accomplishment, but it's very fragile right now. And he may be focusing more on that when he talks to Benjamin Netanyahu. And finally, on Ukraine, we... reported about special envoy Wyckoff meeting with both Russian and Ukrainian officials over the weekend. Are we any closer to a deal there?

I think we should be cautious making any big forecasts. A lot of positive statements were made. Steve Witkoff said those were productive talks. You had the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky saying that they really had a solid basis now. This was quite positive. But he also said there are still issues that the Ukrainians and the Russians still aren't ready to compromise on. And I would remind everyone that despite all this positive talk, there is no sign from Russia thus far that they're ready to make major concessions. And you had a pretty strident response when our colleague Keir Starmer asked him at his press conference in Moscow, what his attitude was the war? And he said, you know, we're not basically compromising. Ukraine doesn't basically capitulate to their demands. It's over. Okay. Dandelus, thanks so much. Up next, the latest major midterm shakeup as a one-time rising star on the Republican Party announces she's dropping her bid for New York governor and leaving Congress. As Republicans brace for more retirement announcements over the holidays, you're watching Meet the Press Now.

Welcome back. Just moments after the DOJ began releasing the Epstein files on Friday afternoon, there was a big political announcement of a different kind and one that was largely eclipsed by the Epstein news. An unexpected shakeup in New York's Republican primary for governor, with New York representative Elise Stefanik announcing that she was dropping out of the race. and retiring from Congress. Elise Stefanik, who was once a rising star in the party and a member of House Republican leadership, staying in a statement, quote, it is not an effective use of our time or your generous resources to spend the first half of the next year and an unnecessary and protracted Republican primary. Her departure seemingly clears the way for Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman to be the Republican nominee. President Trump quickly endorsed Bruce Blakeman in the wake of Elise Stefanik X. it, calling him, quote, MAGA all the way. Joining me now is our panel, former Missouri State Representative Don Calloway. He's now a Democratic strategist. And former Florida Congressman Carlos Carbello, he is an NBC News political analyst. So Carlos, let's start with you. I know you know Congresswoman Stefani, he served with her. She's leaving the race and Congress. It was all announced just as our attention was on the Justice Department in the Epstein files last week. What do you make of this timing? Well, Ryan, this is a big blow for New York Republicans, especially for members running for re-election to the House, for challengers, and then also for... Republicans down battle. At least Afanek is very popular. She was going to boost Republican turnout in New York, like Lee Zeldin did in 2022, and Republicans had those gains in the congressional delegation there. And now this is going to be a much harder race for governor, and I think it's going to have a negative trickle-down effect. on New York Republicans. On the personal side, look, Elisa Fennick, aside from having served in Congress now for quite some time, is a relatively new mother. And the cost of public service has gone up. We know she hasn't been happy in the House. She hasn't been content with Speaker Johnson's leadership. So she made this personal decision, and I think it's the best decision for her and her family. So, Don, to Carlos' point about how this impacts the Republican Party in New York, the president has already thrown his support behind Bruce Blakeman. Part of the reason that Elise Stefanik got in was because there was a sense that the Democratic incumbent there, Kathy Hochul, was vulnerable. Lee Zeldin ran a stronger race as Republicans have in some time. Does this make the path for Kathy Hochul much easier? Oh, it absolutely does. Listen, anybody who carries that MAGA flag will come with some immediate vulnerabilities that they're going to have to address, particularly in a state night like New York, in which, yes, a Republican can absolutely be competitive. We've seen folks like Representative Lee Zeldin and other Republican nominees be competitive in those statewide races for Senate and governor over the years in New York State. You've got upstate Albany, you've got some extraordinarily rural areas. It's not just New York City.

But you have to be competitive in New York City. And it's going to be very, very difficult for a guy who's carrying the MAGA flag, particularly if the president gets out there and campaigns for him aggressively. It's going to be very, very difficult for someone like that to be Cackley-Kathy Hochul, who is not the most liberal governor in the United States and who effectively has not done a poor job, objectively, excuse me, has not done a poor job as governor. So, Carlos, I'm from New York. I grew up in upstate New York. I know exactly what Don's talking about. It's much different than New York City. But that's also part of the problem for Republicans, isn't it? The way for a Republican to win would be someone that's a bit more moderate that could appeal perhaps to more right-leaning Democrats or independent Democrats. But in order to win a Republican primary and really bring out the base Republican vote, you've got to be all in on Donald Trump. Is that why it's so hard for Republicans to win in a blue state like New York? It's a tough balancing act, Ryan, and we know there's a big difference between the New York Giants and the Buffalo Bills, right? I know what you're talking about. But Elise Stefanik is a candidate who maybe could have pulled that off. Elise Stefanik, of course, has all the MAGA credentials. But she also had somewhat of a centrist voting record in Congress, especially at the beginning when I served with her. So she's one of the Republicans that I think could have pulled off that difficult balancing act that a lot of Republicans need to pull. off. And again, even if she hadn't won, I think she would have helped Republicans down ballot. We know that in places like Long Island, which has become a battleground within the state of New York, Lee Zeldin was critical to helping a lot of those Republicans in that area get elected. I think Elise Stefanik would have done the same. Now, that's going to be a lot harder. Yeah, Carlos, the biggest difference between the Buffalo Bills and the New York Giants is that the Buffalo Bills actually play in New York State, which the New York Giants do not. But, Don, to expand on Carlos's point here, wasn't that also part of the problem? for Elise Tophonic is that she had somewhat of an authenticity problem. She started out as somewhat of a moderate Republican tried to appeal to the middle of the country. But then went all in on Donald Trump and became a MAGA warrior. And no one could really tell where her true loyalties lied. Well, I think she did what all Republicans did in the era of MAGA. I mean, they all went all in with Donald Trump, particularly a member of House leadership. We have to remember that Elise Stefanik rose through the ranks of House rank and file extremely quickly. She was one of the younger members of the House, and she got to leadership in an extraordinarily quick time for a young person and a young woman at that. So I think that at the time when Donald Trump had a chokehold on the Republican Party, particularly in the House, she fell in line. I don't know if that created an authenticity problem, but it certainly created a MAGA problem that she would have had to face in the general had she made it there. The challenge is that Donald Trump really doesn't have loyalty to anyone. So when you see the...

the lengths that she went to at her own personal sacrifice, and he didn't even endorse her, right? He still went with the Nassau County executive who has nowhere near the political experience or national visibility that Elise Stefanik did. And now that we've started to see other MAGA members, excuse me, other Republican members of the House and Senate peel off from MAGA Nation, it's going to be interesting to watch the tide shift over the course of the next eight years. And unfortunately, at least DeFantic was... appears our political career was something of a victim of that. Yeah, to that point, Carlos, it's not just that she decided not to run for governor, but she seems to be getting out of politics for good, or at least for now, by not running for reelection. What do you make of the amount of people, particularly in the Republican Party, Republican women in particular, Elise Stefanik being one, Marjorie Taylor Greene being another, that have decided they just are done with this. They do not want to be in Congress anymore. Ryan, my understanding is all the retirements we've read about already. There are many more in the pipeline. Again, it is a difficult time to serve. We know that this administration has not deferred to Congress on many issues. A lot of members are quietly frustrated about that. Most members aren't like Marjorie Taylor Greene where they're going to declare war and make it a big public spat, but there's a lot of frustration in Congress. And at the end of the day, I know it's hard to think about this. because we view these people as leaders, as people who are in the political game. But these are human beings. And when the cost of public service gets too expensive, too high... people get out. I definitely think that's one of the factors that led to at least a Fannick's decision. There's a lot of frustration, particularly in the House, with House leadership. So I think we're going to be talking about a lot more people heading for the exits here in the coming weeks. And Don, less than a minute. Can Democrats take advantage of this? And do they have a different problem? And that now they're seeing even more competitive Democratic primaries with candidates that are further to the left? I don't think we'll see it in that fashion. Perhaps you'll see some challenges statewide, such as a Chuck Schumer who's probably vulnerable to the left, but I don't see that being the national pattern. I do want to focus something on something that Representative Kerbello said, which is there are extraordinary financial opportunities. I'm not saying that Elise DeFionic is leaving to pursue them, but we should note that there are extraordinary financial opportunities in a post-political life, particularly for someone who's a member of House leadership and as visible as Elise Stefanik has. been. And, you know, once you get that congressional pension locked in, a la Marjorie Taylor Greene, and you see that you have probably capped your potential as a member of Congress, then go make your money. And that's unfortunately, well, I'm sorry, not fortunately or unfortunately, but that is a practical reality of what goes into these people's decision-making process as well. Okay, more to come, I'm sure on that point. Don and Carlos, thank you guys both for being here. I appreciate it. After the break, the Trump administration moves to end temporary protective status for hundreds of thousands of migrants who initially came to the U.S. legally. That story's next on Meet the Press Now.

Welcome back as part of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The Department of Homeland Security is revoking temporary protected status known as TPS for hundreds of thousands of migrants who came to the U.S. legally. TPS is a program created by Congress in 1990 to allow immigrants fleeing their home country, often due to war, natural disasters, or other dangerous conditions to temporarily live and work in the U.S. But with the Trump administration's latest move, many of those immigrants who were once protected may now be facing deportation. NBC News White House correspondent Yamish Al-Sindor has more. Every day, Alex Lomong, who fled violence in South Sudan and immigrated to the U.S. in 2009, worries about his future. I just want to be giving up opportunity to stop my life fresh without always worrying about, hey, will I be safe next year? The 28-year-old is one of thousands of immigrants facing possible deportation as the Trump administration ends temporary protected status for a host of countries. Le Mung, who was 11 when he came to the U.S., says his father, two brothers, and a number of family members were killed in the ongoing bloodshed engulfed in South Sudan. So your whole extended family basically has been killed in South Sudan because of the violence there? Yes, well. That must be terrifying to think about being deported back there. Being deported there is basically like a suicide mission. The whole community is devastated because this is the only thing we've been relying on. to live in states. And now that's stripped away. As of March 31st, 2025, there are approximately 1.3 million people with temporary protected status living in the U.S., according to the American Immigration Council. The Trump administration has said it is ending TPS for at least 11 countries. Officials have also insisted that the situations in those places no longer meet the TPS requirements. And in some cases, they've said conditions on the ground have improved enough for people to safely return. TPS is a program that was always meant to be temporary. I know that the president wants to bring integrity to our programs and make sure that they're applied appropriately to the individuals and to the countries which they're supposed to benefit. But Ophelia L. Caldron, an immigration lawyer, says the Trump administration's efforts are part of a different goal than the one articulated by the administration. I think it's part of their push to punish all immigrants legal or otherwise for being in the United States. I think that their movement to one-by-one terminate designation is a movement to piece-by-piece terminate TPS, period. There have been at least a half a dozen lawsuits seeking to push back on President Trump's efforts to end TPS with varying results. Anybody, actually, who has TPS should seek legal counsel so that they can figure out if there's something that can be done. NBC News asked the Department of Homeland Security for comment on this story and about what recourse it offers people whose TPS is ending.

But we didn't hear back. In October, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to revoke temporary legal status for up to 600,000 Venezuelan immigrants. Maria Sidmon, who ran a medical lab in Venezuela, is worried about being forced back there. She says local political actors began threatening her for not supporting Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro. We was forced to leave Venezuela. It's not like my decision. I was forced. Now, her TPS has expired and her asylum request is still pending. Like Lamong, she says she isn't sure what she will do. The government of Venezuela has been broken so many... human rights. I don't understand why you want to send us back. The situation in Venezuela is going to say, it's getting worse. It's getting worse and worse every day. Meanwhile, Lamong, a decorated track athlete and graduate of Ohio State, lives in fear as he tries to get asylum to stay in the U.S. I'm terrified. I don't know where I'll go. I don't know. I'll just feel like another foreigner in a place where I used to know that no longer exist. Yami Shalcindor, NBC News. Our thanks to Yamish for that reporting. And as you just heard, the Trump administration is ending temporary protection status for South Sudanese immigrants, despite that nation remaining deeply unstable. So much so that a leading humanitarian relief organization places South Sudan third on its list of countries most likely to face worsening human rights crises in the coming year. Only Sudan and the occupied Palestinian territory are deemed more urgent on the International Rescue Committee's emerging. emergency watch list for 2026. Joining me now is Karen Donnelly. He's the Senior Vice President for Crisis Response Recovery and Development at the International Rescue Committee. First of all, how do you compile your emergency watch lists? What criteria goes into that decisions? So we look at a database of 74 qualitative and quantitative indicators that help us understand. in a situation in countries around the world. And then we complement that with analysis and information coming from the IRC's own staff. We have thousands of staff in over 35 countries around the world. That helps us come up with a list of the 20 countries that are most at risk of deterioration in terms of the humanitarian situation. over the coming year. And those 20 countries represent 89% of the people estimated to be in need of humanitarian assistance today. That's 239 people, 9 million people worldwide. 89% in these 20 countries, but they're only 12% of the global population. So it's really a concentration both of humanitarian need today and humanitarian risk for the year ahead. And the IRC warns.

A new world disorder with regards to next year's list. What makes this different than previous years? So we're seeing surging humanitarian needs around the world. As I said, 239 million people estimated by the UN to be in need of humanitarian assistance over the coming year. 117 million people have been displaced and forced to flee from their homes. The vast majority of them are hosted in neighboring countries and lower and middle income countries. What we're seeing around the world are three trends that are contributing to prolonging and extending this. this level of humanitarian need and the underlying conflict. The first is an unraveling of global cooperation. So not only have we seen dramatic cuts to foreign aid over the past year, 83% of US foreign aid programs have been cut. Other donors have also slashed humanitarian budgets. But we're seeing countries increasingly using their veto at the UN Security Council to prevent and hinder conflict resolution, conflict prevention. Secondly, We're seeing an increased duration and complexity of conflicts and an increasing level of conflicts perpetuated because of economic incentives, countries that are involved in wars in order to facilitate trade in order to generate revenue. We see that in the gold trade in Sudan. We see that in eastern Congo in other places. And then lastly, there's an increase in the impunity. for attacks against civilians and aid workers, making it even harder for us to serve people and putting civilians increasingly in harm's way with schools, health centers, increasingly in the firing line as conflicts unfold. So these three things together are not just increasing the level of humanitarian need. They're extending conflict and making it increasingly an unstable. dynamic in especially in these 20 countries where there's a concentration of humanitarian risk. It's so complicated, but what could be done that could alleviate your concerns? So we set out in the watch list, which is available on our website on rescue.org, a detailed set of recommendations. But essentially, it involves empowering and resourcing conflict prevention and mitigation efforts. It involves supporting foreign aid and reforms to foreign aid so that the most effective solutions can be deployed to meet the needs of people around the world. And it involves standing up for humanitarian law. and the rights of civilians and the rights of aid workers working in dangerous conflict zones around the world. And these are all essentially simple, but profoundly challenging in today's political environment. Okay, Kieran Donald, an eye-opening report, sir. Thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Still to come, finding common ground on the 2028 primary calendar. A pair of bipartisan political insiders coming together to make their home state the first in the nation primary state. Stay with us on Meet the Press Now.

She'll get a lot of the day. Welcome back. Turning now to our Finding Common Ground series and a pair of political operatives on opposite sides of the aisle who are coming together to push both parties to make a big change to the 2028 presidential primary schedule. Former Biden White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates and former Republican National Committee Communications Director Doug High argue in an op-ed that North Carolina should hold the nation's first... presidential primaries. Writing in part, the entire country would benefit from hearing from the perspective of voters in a diverse swing state representing the largest region in the country. And joining me now are the two North Carolinians behind that op-ed, Andrew Bates and Doug High. Doug, I think kind of wearing Carolina blue. I think a version of it. As you guys both point out, North Carolina, it's a swing state. Donald Trump won it. So did the Democratic Governor Josh sign in 2024. Doug, I'll start with you. Why is it a good reason to start voting there? Because as we put in the piece, this is a very diverse state. It is a growing state. And it's also a very close one. And not just on the presidential level where, you know, Donald Trump, sure, he carried it three times, but his biggest margin was 3.7%. So that's not a blowout. If you look at Senate races through the years. We haven't had a double-digit Senate victory since the Watergate election of 1974. And our Senate races and our gubernatorial races seem to go back and forth quite a bit between R&D and they're always close. And you both reference, Andrew, the Tower Hill state's purple credentials, their demographics. Those are things that you can do that can change over a year to year. Why do you think a primary move should be permanent or should it be permanent or should the parties be always reevaluate? this every election cycle. Well, like you and Doug were talking about almost every recent election in North Carolina has been close and it has been contested. I was there in 2016 as the communications director for Hillary Clinton's campaign where we fought hard to win it. Barack Obama won it in 2008. And this is a state that both parties are going to continue fighting hard for up and down the ballot. And I also think that it's important to take note that the South is by far the biggest region in the country. One in three Americans live in the South. And as Democrats work to make ourselves more competitive,

I think that it would be very beneficial for us to hear that perspective from southern voters in a large, diverse swing state out of the gate as our presidential candidates start trying to make their case. Andrew, your pitch does come after the DNC voted to start voting for Democrats in the other Carolina in 2024. That led to some scheduling drama with New Hampshire. Obviously, the state thinks it matters, but do voters care that much about this primary process? I think that this has more to do with us caring about hearing from voters in a new way, because like you were talking about, Iowa, New Hampshire, have gone first for a long time. And I don't know many Americans who think it is fair to the rest of the country for that to be permanent. I think that it would make sense to take into account where do most Americans live. The South is by far the biggest region. As Democrats, we have a lot of repairing to do of our relationships with voters who we need to win in swing states like North Carolina. So I think it would say a lot if we showed that we wanted to listen to them, to hear from them, and to figure out right as our contests start, what does it take to earn their support? Doug, who's this a harder sell for? Your Republicans or Andrews Democrats, especially considering that the former RNC chair is an active Senate candidate there now. Ryan, I think the Republicans are set in stone. And I love the Iowa caucus. I ran communications for it in 2012. But Iowa's not going to be in play. And if we look at Senate races, gubernatorial races, Iowa's not really in play, New Hampshire, a little bit. But North Carolina, always in play. And regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats do this, it's good for both parties. Because you develop that farm team mentality where you're developing political talent on the grassroots level in counties and throughout the state. So many people come from Iowa and New Hampshire who have very big political careers. I want to grow that talent in North Carolina. Okay. Well, I've got both of you here, a Republican operative and a Democratic operative. Obviously, you've come together on this issue. But let me start with you, Doug. Are there other areas that Republicans and Democrats should be working together on? Can you think of something that is an issue that you can find common ground on in 2026 and beyond? Well, I start with where President Trump had enormous success on a bipartisan basis in his first term. And that was criminal justice reform. And I think you can be for common sense criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenders. without saying that you're weak on crime and so forth. Donald Trump did very well on that. He doesn't really talk about it anymore. He tries to hide from some of that. I think there's a good opportunity to continue trying to do that kind of work. Andrew, what about you? What's an issue you think that Democrats could find common ground with Republicans on? Criminal justice reform being one, but are there others?

I agree with Doug about criminal justice reform. Another one is monopolies and mega mergers, because there is a lot of concern in this country among people from all kinds of political points of view about how these companies that keep consolidating and eliminating competition are gaining more and more power over consumers and able to charge them in a lot of cases, whatever they want. I know this is salient because of the conversation about Netflix and Paramount. I think that there are a lot of folks, Democrats and Republicans, who want to hear from their leaders that they have the guts to take on some of these extremely powerful companies, especially when affordability is what Americans care about the most. Okay. And what about, are we both tar heels here? Andrew, I know, I know Doug's allegiance in North Carolina, but where does yours lie? I went to NC State. I'm a proud member of the Wolfpack. A member of the Wolfpack. All right. Well, listen, it's good to see that you have those allegiances, but you also can come together on an issue like this. I appreciate it. We can come together on hating Duke as well. That's also a common ground. Okay, Andrew Bates, Doug High. Thank you guys both for being here. Have a terrific holiday. I appreciate you being here on a holiday week. Thank you. And we'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. Thank you so much for joining me. There's more news ahead right now. on NBC News Now.

Snoring, gasping for air during sleep, daytime sleepiness. I'm Shaquille O'Neill, and this shouldn't be anybody's experience. As your doctor about Zep bound to her Zipatine. The first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, OSA, and obesity to improve their OSA. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, or 15 milligram injection. Zepound contains chrezepotide and should not be used with other trezepotide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zepound is safe and effective for use in children. Don't share needles or pens or reuse needles. Don't take if allergic to it, or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer, or if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop stepbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing, pregnant, plan to be, or taking birth control pills. Taking Zepbound with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor. Call 1-800-545-9 or visit Zepbound.lily.com.